Slashdot Mirror
Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted
An anonymous reader writes "Social media is ill-suited to promoting real social change, argues Malcolm Gladwell in this article from The New Yorker magazine. He deftly debunks conventional wisdom surrounding the impact of Twitter, Facebook and other social media in driving systemic social change, comparing them to the organizational strategies of the 1960s civil rights movement. For example, the Montgomery bus boycott, he argues, was successful because it was driven by the disciplined and hierarchically organized NAACP. In contrast, a loose, social-media style network wouldn't have sustained the year long campaign. He concludes that social media promote social 'weak ties' which are not strong enough to motivate people to take big risks, such as imprisonment or attack, for social change."
That's a very good point. However, if you notice, the author of this article is not the one making the claim that social media will do the promoting. Rather, he is trying to debunk that very claim as made by others. Apparently, quite a few folks feel the the social media revolution has, or will, revolutionize the way people organize to make change. There have even been books written about this. The author is making the point that social media can only be used as a tool to make change where there is little risk for those involved in the movement. For any change that requires real risk, social media is an inadequate tool because the ties formed through social media are not binding enough to give protesters enough confidence. So the miscategorization of the role of social media is not so much on the side of the author, but rather on the side of those that he is attempting to rebuff.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
. In contrast, a loose, social-media style network wouldn't have sustained the year long campaign.
TeaParty
Q.E.D
I do not think that means what you think it means.
I'm not commenting on the validity of the TeaParty movement at all, I'm just saying that it seems to be counter to what the author just said
The "Tea Party" movement, like the Montgomery Bus Boycott, was started and sustained by a top-down organization. Unlike the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the organization is an extremely well-funded group of the extremely wealthy industrialists, with major media support, from the very beginning -- the "Tax Day Tea Party" protests in April 2009 that were the beginning of the movement were organized and funded by corporate lobbying groups and actively promoted by Fox News, and the movement continues to be funded heavily through the same corporate lobbying groups and promoted by Fox News.
So, no, the validity of the Tea Party movement aside, its existence is absolutely not a counterpoint to the argument that a loose, social-media style network couldn't have sustained a year-long campaign similar to the Montgomery Bus Boycott, because the Tea Party movement isn't sustained by a loose, social-media style network.
The main two channels for funding, from day one, are Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity.
The main institutional communication medium is Fox News, who even billed the original FreedomWorks and AFP-organized Tax Day Tea Party Protests as "FNC Tax Day Tea Party Protests" on the air in promoting them.
Fox News is not a loose, social-media style network. Neither are Freedom Works or Americans for Prosperity.
It is funny how the same Industialists and Corporate Lobbying groups can't get their established politicians (Crist) elected, and tea party people (Rubio) are winning elections.
The same lobbying groups that are funding the Tea Party movement are usually not backing the candidates that the movement opposes.
Other lobbying groups might be, but differing lobbying groups (even if they are perceived as being on the same side of the left/right divide) backing opposing positions is hardly new.